Withholding Non-prejudicial Evidence Does not Violate The Brady Requirement

State of Utah v. Hamblin, 2010 UT App. 239, (Utah Court of Appeals August 26, 2010).

Hamblin, convicted of rape, sodomy, and sexual abuse of a child, moved for a new trial because of the prosecutor’s failure to inform him that the victim had recanted a portion of her story.  This recantation cleared Hamblin of several of the charges including a particularly gruesome object rape.  However, prosecution amended the charges and removed certain charges from the trial.  While the Court of Appeals encouraged prosecutors to error on the side of disclosure.  The non-disclosure in this did not violate the Brady requirement.  Brady requires that the prosecution disclose any evidence in their possession that is exculpatory and material. 

While this evidence may have had somewhat exculpatory value, the evidence withheld would not have sufficiently changed the outcome of the case.  The evidence withheld merely put the victim’s credibility at issue and during the trial, she was subject to cross examination, and a great portion of the cross spent on her credibility eliciting several statements that favored Hamblin.  Because the further evidence would not sufficiently have changed the cross examination or the outcome of the case, Hamblin was not prejudiced by the non-disclosure, therefore the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the request for a new trial.

Full Decision available at    http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/hamblin082610.pdf